Democracy is bad for socialism

People are not loyal to political parties which is why first past the post leads to minority socialist rule. If people are given a choice and have that choice honoured in parliament with a proportional voting system then minority rule and socialism will not be possible. Socialism is a form of minority rule and so when people have full democracy (in contrast to fptp) they are in the best situation to get rid of the government. Democracy removes socialism which is why pr is preferable to first past the post.

There is no government so fptp doesn't work

Fptp is a nice idea like communism but sadly it doesn't work. There is no government and we are not slaves (even if we would like to be) so people want and need to have more choice... which is why pr is preferable and essential. We cannot have a leader because choices must be made by each of us. There are no rules to life the government cannot tell us what is in our best interests and so statism (and fptp) doesn't work.

Good governments are proportional

The first-past-the-post voting system forces liberals (either social or economic...) to endorse authoritarians... or to risk losing their vote. It is not 'normal' to have elections (government is wrong) so if there are elections it is natural that care is taken to ensure proportionality. (If the government is nice.) If there is voting it is strange not to guarantee proportionality. Governments are weird and bad if they are not proportional. If a government seeks to be bad and to do harm then fptp is the best system (it makes it harder for the voters to be free). If the government wants to be sure that voters have the best chance at fair representation (to be free) then the voting system should be proportional. If the government doesn't want to be bad then it should have a proportional voting system. The government might have bad intentions if it insists on fptp. The government can show it has good intentions by being proportional... only a bad government would fail to be proportional. A lack of proportionality is proof that the government does not have good intentions.

First past the post is a form of socialism

First past the post is a form of socialism because it does not expose the government to democracy. Democracy is the only thing which holds the government to account. Without democracy the government can grow and grow and there is nothing to stop it. Democracy stops the government and so the most democratic system (pr) is the best at stopping socialism. The least democratic system (fptp) is the worst at stopping socialism and so it is consistent to say that fptp is a form of socialism.

Democracy is not government

There is no government if people are fairly (and directly) represented... to have proportional representation is to have no government at all. Representation (democracy) is anarchy. First past the post is not anarchy because the people are not represented they are controlled by the parties. If there is not proportionality there is not democracy (there is government) which means there is not freedom. Freedom requires proportional representation. Proportional representation is bad for governments. If there is a government then pr is bad for it. Democracy is not government... it is the opposite of government so to have more democracy (in the form of pr) is to have less government.

Tories hate pr because it would be good for freedom

The Tories hate freedom more than they hate living under the control of the Labour party. If the reverse of this statement were true then the Tories would support pr which would diminish the power of the Labour party. The fact that they (the Tories) do not support pr means that they hate freedom more than they hate the Labour party. Any party which rejects pr is rejecting freedom. Pr is freedom and so the only parties which can claim to be interested in freedom are those which support pr. The dominance of the Labour party under fptp shows that democracy (pr) would be better. To support fptp and to claim to be in favour of freedom is to deny the evidence that Labour do well under fptp. Labour win under fptp because people want to be free and this makes it impossible for them to vote for the Tories (since the Tories support fptp). It is good that fptp doesn't work because it means that people want to be free and not controlled by the Labour party. Labour win (under fptp) because people do not like Labour! If people liked Labour they could vote for the Tories to make sure to retain fptp... it is because people do not like Labour that the Tories are rejected in fptp elections. It is good that the Tories lose fptp elections because this means people (hate Labour and) want to be free. If it is possible for the Tory party to win a fptp election this means that people are tolerant of the Labour party. Thankfully Labour always win fptp elections. Labour win under fptp because people hate them. The only reason for the Tories to retain fptp is if they support the Labour party and are worried about (non-Labour) anarchy. Tories keep fptp to make sure the Labour party retains control of the government. Tories hate pr because it means Labour might not win... and there might be anarchy.

The Tories prefer Labour to freedom

It's impossible to support the Conservative party (and to have self-respect) if they reject the concept of democracy itself by rejecting pr. The Tories are fine with losing to Labour provided pr is not introduced. They are more opposed to the government being restrained by democracy than they are the Labour party. The Tories would prefer the country to be run by Labour than to have the government restrained by a true democratic system. They are more concerned that the government should not be restrained by the people (more worried about protecting the government from pr) than they are concerned about a Labour victory... at least with a Labour victory there is not anarchy. They hate pr more than they hate Labour... they prefer Labour to freedom.

Fptp is a monopoly for the Labour party

With a fptp voting system voters are 'required' to be loyal to and vote for the respective parties of the left and the right. If people are not loyal in this way they will lose and suffer either Leftism or Rightism which is not what they (respectively) want. So this form of democratic system requires discipline and loyalty on each side. Since the left is ideologically more collectivist then fptp poses less of a problem for the left. It takes more discipline for Libertarian voters and voters on the right to be loyal to a particular party. This means that it is much easier for the left to prosper in a fptp election. Fptp elections are very difficult for the right to do well in. The right can only succeed under fptp if it is able to make a sufficiently large proportion of the population scared of a Labour victory... sufficiently scared to vote for the Tories. If the right is not able to make people scared of Labour then they will lose. The right will lose under fptp if it cannot terrify people into supporting the dominant party of the right. If people are scared into Tory loyalty by Labour then fptp is equivalent to pr otherwise it is worse (than pr) for the right. If people are not scared (enough) of Labour to vote for the Tories then fptp is bad for the right. For Labour to do well under fptp they need only to not be scary to the general electorate.

Fptp is favourable to the Labour party

The false assumption made by people on the right who support fptp is that people will be prepared to vote for a party they don't like very much (the Tories) in order to keep out Labour. This is a false assumption. History shows that people are prepared to 'let' Labour win even if they are anti-tyranny if it (the alternative) means voting for someone they do not like. Rather than to support the Tories people are prepared to let Labour win which means the assumptions made by people on the right supporting fptp are false. The right are wrong to support fptp because people will let Labour win even if they do not like tyranny. People are prepared to let Labour win even if that means failing in their (false) obligation to vote Tory. Fptp puts an obligation on supporters of each side to vote for their respective dominant party otherwise they will lose out to the opposition. Since no such obligation exists in reality this is better for the left who are less disinclined to be collectivist. Since there is no such obligation to vote for any party then pr is best. Fptp assumes an obligation to vote for the Tory party or it is knowingly socialist. Fptp is either deliberately favourable to the Labour party or it (incorrectly) assumes people are obligated to vote for the Tories. Since there is no obligation then fptp is favourable to the Labour party.

Anarchy is proportional representation

A definition of anarchy is that it is proportional representation. This means that if there is not pr there is not anarchy. Pr and anarchy are the same thing. There is no difference between pr and anarchy.

All anarchists support pr none tolerate fptp

People who support pr are anarchists... those who do not support pr are not anarchists. Support for pr generally indicates that someone does not like the government. It is unlikely that a statist would support pr. Failure to support pr means that someone cannot claim to be an anarchist.

Coalitions are the same as not having a government

Fptp is a problem in itself

With proportional representation the power goes to no one with fptp the power goes to the winner alone. Fptp aggregates the power to the person who wins the race but with pr the power remains with the voters... there is no concentration of power with pr. Since it is not necessary for power to be concentrated (with the government) then fptp is not necessary. If government is a concentration of power then fptp is government and pr is anarchy. With pr there is no government because power is not concentrated. People who like and approve of the government naturally see no problem with fptp because they see no problem with this concentration of power... people who are anarchists immediately see the problem with fptp. Only statists are blind to the problem of (don't hate) fptp. Fptp is not a remedy to the problems of government and democracy. If there is a government then it must be democratic. If democracy is OK (not a contradiction) then pr is OK. Only statists like fptp. The two-party system which emerges with the use of fptp is a form of statism. If statism is power not held evenly then fptp is statism. The same things wrong with the government (power held in the hands of too few people) are wrong with fptp. Fptp is a problem for the same reasons that government is a problem.

First past the post causes government

The Tories don't help capitalism (if they support fptp)

If there is democracy there can be no government

It is silly to prefer Labour to democracy. It is better to give people a choice than to force them to support Labour... which is what fptp does. In the choice between (being fine with) Labour and pr we can say that pr is preferable. With fptp the government is synonymous with Labour but with pr there is no government because there is a democracy. Democracy (pr) is anarchy... even if many of the voting public want to have a government.

First past the post is not a democracy

People claim that fptp is a form of democracy and that pr would not be preferable... (just another version of the same thing) they claim that we have a choice now between the two parties of a fptp-duopoly and that pr would make no difference. But is is not true to say that fptp operates fully as a democracy. It is impossible for voters to vote for a party which is not progressive (that doesn't want to make things better) and so the Tories never win under fptp. This means that fptp is not a democracy but a monopoly for Labour. Fptp is not bad (an obstacle) for Labour because it is not democratic. Democracy would be bad for Labour... pr would be better for the country because it is a genuine form of democracy.

Tories can't win because of their support for fptp

The problem with fptp is that progressives tend to be on the left... it is not inconsistent for (progressive) Labour to support fptp (fptp is good for government) where it is inconsistent for the Tories to do so. And people will not vote for a party which is not progressive. (Progressive (anti-state) Tories would support pr so fptp-supporting Tories do not get elected.) It is not progressive to vote for the centre-right party of a fptp duopoly but it can be seen as progressive to vote for Labour (who like the government). The Conservatives do not claim to be progressives if they support fptp. If the Tories were progressive they would support pr so it is impossible to vote for them unless they support pr. (It is impossible to vote for non-progressives.) The only way the Tories can get elected is to (be progressive and) endorse pr. The Tories cannot get elected and will keep losing if they continue to support fptp.

Voters are arrogant if they support fptp

Voters are arrogant and stupid if they accept without questioning the validity of first past the post. If voters do not question whether fptp is a good system they are arrogant. It is arrogant not to question whether fptp is a good system. We, as the voters, are also the government which means that with fptp we have failed to give other people (and ourselves) a proper choice. Because we have failed to give people enough choice in how they are governed we have been oppressive. It is oppressive for voters to endorse fptp.

The Tories are guilty of hypocrisy

Tories support fptp even though they know it is left-wing. It is absurd to deny that giving people more choice will give them more freedom so the Tories (if they support fptp) are being inconsistent. The Tories are guilty of hypocrisy if they support fptp and recognise that more choice is good. If choice is good then pr is good and the Tories are hypocrites.

People choose freedom where possible

An anarchist who doesn't like pr doesn't realise that with more democracy comes less government. Such anarchists falsely deduce that since (big) government comes from democracy under fptp then more democracy will lead to more government. But this is not the case. Despite big government coming from democratic fptp more democracy is still good. (Fptp is better than outright dictatorship.) It is possible for pr to be good even if fptp is bad. It is not because we want things to be more like fptp that reformists want pr... it is because we want things to be less like they are now. It is not the lack of government which makes people want to change the voting system. These (anti-pr) anarchists do not realise that people will vote for Labour (the party of the left) despite not supporting all of their policies merely to get rid of the Tories. Those voters will vote for less government under pr... fptp 'forces' voters to vote for more government than they want. This is the nature of tactical voting. If people have more choice they will choose freedom and less government. If they can people will choose freedom.

Only statists like first past the post

If we define right-wing as being (falsely) bigoted* then first past the post is not right wing. (It is left-wing.) There is no assumption supporting fptp which is incorrect... apart from statism. Fptp is bad not because of any bigotry but because those who support it fail to see the truth that pr is better. Adherents of fptp are blind to the advantages of pr... which means they must be blind to the advantages of freedom. People who like fptp are content to be lead by the government. It is because people like the government that they like fptp. No anarchist would want fptp because the choice is too limited. Anarchists like pr.

*In some way other than being in favour of the state.

If there is a government then pr is a natural right

First past the post is a violation of human rights

First past the post is not a right

Parties should not assume parliamentary power which is not in proportion to the votes they have received. To assume power and take up government with a greater mandate than that expressed by the popular vote is an irresponsible form of tyranny... which has no place in a civilised society. Parties have no right to power which is not in direct proportion to their votes.

Democracy is why we do not have communism

The point of Toryism should be to be defiant in the rejection of (socialist) tyranny but fair in all other areas. There is no point being a Tory if not to defend freedom... but it is inconsistent not to allow people to have fair elections. There is nothing to be gained from restricting the choice of parties available to people to just two main parties. People do not vote for any party (even the Tories) out of fear so there are no votes to be lost in rejecting fptp. There is nothing to be lost in switching to pr and possibly something to be gained. It is possible (and likely) that voters will migrate to parties which offer more freedom provided what they demand of the state is not absent. People will reject what they do not want whilst still being able to keep certain state services which they demand. There is no point (from the Tory perspective) of retaining power in this way by restricting choice. (And forcing people to vote tactically.) There is nothing to be lost (for anti-government liberals) in allowing people to be represented by voting for any party. Proportional representation is not a threat to freedom... quite the reverse is true. Pr lets voters choose less government where fptp would not have allowed them to do so. A liberated electorate produces less government. A liberated government comes from a restricted electorate... which is bad. If the people are given more choice then the government can be more easily refused. We should give the voters every chance to refuse the government. Choice means the ability to refuse and more democratic choice means less government. Democracy is choice and more choice means less government. People do not choose big government it is imposed upon them and so choice reduces government. To give people democracy is to give them the opportunity to (be free and) reduce the size of the state. The state cannot be reduced in size without democracy. The state is not universal (we do not have full communism) only because of democracy.

Democracy is good even if the voters are stupid

It doesn't matter if democracy (being ruled by an electorate) is bad... pr is still preferable to fptp. If the voters are complete and committed communists then any form of democracy will result in death because the outcome will be the same... but if a sufficiently large number of voters are not communists then the voting system used makes a difference and pr is preferable. Even if democracy is bad and the voters are socialist it is still preferable to (give them more democracy and) have pr. Stupid people with more choice (of government) do less damage than stupid people with a restricted choice. (Government is worse than stupid people.) Fptp does nothing to constrain the electorate... they can easily get enough stupid from what they are offered. The electorate do no less damage under fptp than they would do under pr.. in fact they (enable the government to) do much more. Stupid people should be given more choice in electing the government because even stupid voters are better than the state. The voters are better than the state no matter how stupid they are. It doesn't matter how stupid the voters are.. more democracy is always better.

The alternative to pr is fptp not anarchy

Pr would reduce the state even further than fptp. When we discuss the merits of fptp versus pr it is often assumed (correctly) that the state under fptp is too large and should be smaller. But without fptp (with no democracy at all) the state would be complete. People who hate the state (but like fptp) tend to hate the democratic process because it results in what they perceive to be big government... without realising that democracy is constraining the state. Anti-pr people can be vulnerable to hating democracy because they hate the state... but the problem is not democracy the problem is the state and more democracy is good because democracy is a problem for the state. The fact that democracy results in a state doesn't mean that the people have chosen to have a state... to have a state was (and is) the default position. It is not because of democracy that we have a state. Democracy is only a tool for people to have less state and so it is good to have the most effective (proportional) tool available. Democracy is a vulnerability of the state. We can have democracy without there being a state... most choices in a free market are democratic... but not shared. Democracy is not statism. The state is not democratic. If voters have a choice they will be more free. Only if a lack of democracy means anarchy would it be true to reject democracy... but given that the alternative to fptp is pr not anarchy then democracy is good. Democracy is good if the alternative to fptp is pr but otherwise it is bad. The lack of democracy provided by fptp doesn't help to reduce the size of the state because people still obey the laws. Fptp doesn't accelerate anarchy and so pr is preferable. To reject pr in favour of fptp is to be a (silly) communist... pr is more chaotic. Pr removes power from the parties and gives it directly to the people. If pr is bad then fptp is bad. Being anti-democratic is not a sufficient reason to reject pr when the alternative is fptp... as it always is.

Democrats are anarchists and anarchy is freedom

To be a democrat is not to be in favour of the state... perhaps monarchists consider democracy to be a bad thing but if there is a state which is not a monarchy then democracy is the only thing which prevents widespread starvation.

First past the post gives the state too much freedom

The purpose of democracy is to enable the population to constrain the state... but fptp fails to do this because it reduces to a choice between only two parties. With pr there is much more choice which means voters are much better able to constrain the state. Democracy is intended to reduce the state and pr is more 'democratic' than fptp. The government is democratic if it is constrained... the word 'democratic' is not intended to describe some thing 'nice' ...it is not about being sharing and being considerate... it is about being constrained. A pair of handcuffs is democratic. For a voting system to be democratic is bad for the government. First past the post is not democratic enough. Pr is more democratic which means it is worse for the government. Democracies are nasty for the government... the alternative is complete freedom for the government. A lack of democracy gives complete freedom to the state which means people will either starve or be killed.

Democracy is bad for the government

Tories don't like pr because it is fair

Fptp enables the Labour party to win... we have no obligation to make it easy for the left to get elected. Proportional representation would cease to enable Labour to win. People on the right block the introduction of pr due to the (false) fear that it would hurt the Tories. The only reason to block pr is both stupid (incorrect) and unfairly selfish. It is a combination of stupidity and selfishness which makes people on the right reject pr... it is not bad for the Tories and even if it is that wouldn't be a valid reason. Tories fear pr because it might remove a non-existent lack of fairness. Even if their reasoning is correct (it isn't... their party would do no worse under pr) their argument is still prejudiced. The reason the Tories reject pr is because they hate freedom and (falsely) assume their party would do badly in a free system of voting. They don't like pr despite their party not being affected by it... they hate it only for its fairness.

Pr would be very bad for the Labour party

Proportional representation would be terrible for the Labour party. The Labour party receive a significant number of votes due to their not being the Tory party... the Labour party receive many tactical votes. Because of this we can deduce that pr would be very bad for their party.

The Tories would do well under pr

Voters who are willing to enter into a coalition with the Tories are often not prepared to vote for them. To vote for the Tories means to give consent to (what is often religiously-based) bigotry... but liberal people do not mind going into a coalition and doing business with them. In particular Libertarians who reject all forms of economic coercion would likely be willing to go into coalition with the Tories and not with Labour. The Tories are to the left of Libertarians. With pr a section of people currently voting for the Labour party would 'leapfrog' the Tories and exist to their right. Tory support for fptp encourages people to vote tactically which is good for Labour and bad for (the Tories and) Libertarians. What is bad for Labour (proportional representation) is good for the Tories.

Tactical voting is good for the Labour party

People vote tactically to punish the Tories... without fptp there would be no need for people to vote tactically which would be bad for the Labour party. The Labour party are primarily recipients of tactical votes... unlike the Tories... the Tories are not a fptp party (they do not do better because of fptp). People should not vote tactically.

Without fptp there would be no socialism

It would be better for the govt to have a mandate

Fptp gives power to the left when they would not have it with a proportional system. It is silly and ridiculous not to give voters true proportionality... or for voters not to demand proportionality. But the decision rests with the government so whether or not the voters demand it is redundant. Voters are demanding proportionality and nothing happens. It is silly for the government not to concede to the demands of the voters for proportionality... letting the voters have more democracy reduces the government which is what the government should want. The government should not want to exist.

Government is a lack of democracy

The worst kind of democracy is first past the post

People who like fptp think they are the government

Choice can improve even government. Democracy is less bad than tyranny and (in the same way) proportional representation is less bad than first past the post. Only someone who (falsely) thinks themselves a dictator would favour fptp and reject democracy. People who realise they are not the government (people who see themselves as voters) prefer proportional representation.

The Tory party is no longer the opposition

Provided the taxes imposed by the (Labour) party are not too high it is consistent to vote Labour to oppress the Tories for their position on fptp. Even though Labour too are opposed to pr (otherwise it would not even be an issue) it is consistent to vote for them because pr would reduce the size of the state. A large and oppressive state is not a contradiction for the 'left' and so we can understand why they are in favour of... or at least tolerate... fptp. By voting Labour we are punishing the Tories for being inconsistent in their support for fptp. If the Tories (still) support fptp then it makes sense to oppress them by voting for Labour. Even if Labour are to the left of the Tories they are not significantly to the left to the extent that we are fearful of the difference between them and the Tories... the Tories are just as bad in terms of taxation. By voting for Labour the Tories will eventually realise that fptp isn't working for them.

First past the post is proof that the state is malign

As far as fptp is concerned the 'joke' on the voter who must choose between only two parties where it is very possible neither are appealing. It would be strange for anyone in a democracy (apart from a narrow band of party loyalists) to be supportive of fptp... not only are you oppressing yourself with a lack of choice but you are oppressing others. A voter would be stupid to think the state has anything but its own interests at heart... given that it retains fptp. No one could consistently be in favour of the state if there is fptp. Fptp makes us all anarchist(s) but it is still there... it does not go away. Fptp is proof that the state is evil so it would be stupid to vote for more state under fptp. At least fptp makes the problems of socialism obvious. We cannot trust an institution which fails to deliver proportionality and so the existence of fptp demonstrates that we cannot trust the state.

First past the post is illegitimate

If we assume that with more choice there is less government... that democracy is valid... then it makes sense for a socialist party to reject pr. It doesn't make sense, equivalently, for a party of the centre-right to reject pr. If democracy is good then it restricts government which indicates that people want to be free of government... then under that line of thinking more democracy is always good and always reduces the size of the state. So for a party of the centre-right (such as the Tories) to reject pr makes no sense. The Tory proposition would be that (since they are for small government) if people want small government they are free to vote for the Tories... since the Tories are virtuous then people can feel safe in voting for them... and keeping out Labour. But this is the argument of a tyrant. No tyrant thinks they are illegitimate or malign... they think themselves virtuous and see no reason why people should be given a choice. The Tory argument in support for fptp is identical to that of a dictator. First past the post does not legitimise government since it is not (sufficiently) democratic. Only proportional representation is able to legitimise government.

First past the post has no advantages

The Labour party proves that fptp doesn't work

First past the post is not good otherwise the Tories would not keep losing... fptp relies on the implicit assumption of an obligation to keep Labour out... which doesn't exist... thankfully. It's good that fptp isn't good because otherwise we would not be free but burdened with an obligation to reject Labour. Fptp (unsuccessfully) imposes on voters this false obligation. Rejection of the Tory party is rejection of fptp. People don't like fptp or the Tories otherwise the Tories would continually get elected under fptp. Labour success proves fptp doesn't work... it would only work if Labour never get elected... because it is a two-party system and not a one-party system we know it doesn't work. The existence of Labour proves fptp doesn't work.

Proportional representation is not worse than Labour

There is nothing inherently libertarian about first past the post and so there is no particular reason why a party of the right would support it. Fptp doesn't reduce the size of the government any more than pr does (in fact there are good arguments to show the reverse) and so there is no reason to resist pr. Pr would not be worse than government under the centre-left (Labour) party... to be ruled by Labour is not preferable to pr.

The Tories only care about fptp or are illogical

If we assume that all Tories support fptp (and that seems a fair assumption) then we can deduce that the Tories are an illogical party and that it is illogical to support the Tories. The reasoning is as follows: i) First past the post is very good for Labour... if people don't like the Tories for whatever reason (and there are many) then it is natural that voters will give their vote to the Labour party. ii) Something which is good for the Labour party is (presumably) not good for the Tories and not good for the issues which the Tories are interested in. If fptp is the only reason the Tories are supported then there is a certain logic in that but if Tories care about anything other then preserving fptp (such as anti-socialism) then fptp is bad for them and their policies. Tories are only about preserving the antiquated fptp voting system.

First past the post is a form of theft

First past the post is not authoritarian and will stay

Arguments like (being against) fractional reserve banking and first past the post are difficult to 'win' because the state is not making the mistake of authoritarianism. It is not making an error of arrogance (which is easy to identify and refute) it is making an error of negligence. Forcing people to take on the liabilities of the banks by taking them on itself is an arrogant action by the government only in the sense of it being able to do so. The government is doing something we do not like which is a problem for us only because they are the government. Deposit insurance (for banks) is self-destructive for the government but it is a problem for us because the government exists. It is a problem anarchy would solve. We can assume that if the government wanted to give us either free-market banking or proportional representation then it would have done so and since we have no rhetorical ammunition in our favour neither will happen unless the electorate demand it.

It is shocking for democracy not to be proportional

First past the post is a shocking outrage... once it is known and accepted (in the academic community and elsewhere) that fptp fails to produce proportional outcomes then to retain it is an outrage. It is shocking that so many governments still retain fptp. It is shocking because to retain it is in conflict with other established truths about the government such as fairness and equality.

False sceptics are people who deny what is true

The truth becomes clearer when falsities are removed. It can be very difficult to assert the truth of something to those who are not willing to accept it... the only means we have at our disposal is to continually remove false assumptions and hope that eventually our antagonist will accept what is true. In many ways we are at the mercy of such people who deny the truth.

Non-anarchists are all (boring) time-wasters

The definition of a time-waster is someone who fails to see what is obviously true and is complacent about it. If they disagree with something that is generally assumed to be true and is true (and complain about it) then they are not time-wasting they are being insane. To deny what is true is insanity but to fail to even be aware of the truth of something (and that others claim it to be true) is to be a time-waster.

It is only in the sphere of government that time-wasters are important... because to fail to see something in normal life is not a problem. Such people may be a danger to themselves if they fail to see a danger but they are no threat to us. Someone who fails to see problems caused by the government is a problem because they are not someone who is going to help get the problem fixed. To be blind to the problems caused by the government is a problem because government is shared. As far as government is concerned everyone (apart from anarchists) is a time-waster because the government is always a problem.

Proportional representation is to the left of fptp

The nature of fptp is that it leads to the emergence of two dominant parties... we might accept this as benign if we consider one of them to be of the left and the other to be of the right. But this is not the case. It is a false perspective to think that the two fptp parties are of the left and the right... they are both of the right. If we assume the centre-left party is Labour and the centre-right party is the Tory party then someone on the left would vote Labour. But the problem with this is that we might not like Labour. We might think that Labour make the Tories look good when in fact that is exactly what we do not want. Fptp encourages people to vote Tory because the left (Labour) look so bad. People on the left who are not represented by Labour do not like fptp because fptp makes leftism look like Labour and therefore makes it look ridiculous... which is good for the Tories. If the alternative to the Tories is not Labour then fptp presents us with a problem. Fptp is a problem because both of the parties which emerge under this system will be oppressive and of the right... liberty and freedom are to the left of both of the fptp parties... proportional representation is to the left of fptp.